Full Text for Christ's Descent into Hell (Text)

826 Christ's Descent into Hell. Christ's Descent into Hell. Christ's descent into hell is not a moot or undecided doctrine, upon which no clear light can be shed and which remains the subject for speculation indefinitely; nor is it one the correct or incorrect teaching of which is a matter of indifference. It is embodied in the Apostolic Creed, and with the Church of old we confess: "suffered under . . . He descended into hell." It thus becomes a part of our holy Christian faith and one to which we must subscribe as well as to the foregoing or the following. But while the words "descended into hell" are confessed by pra..:ticaliy all of Christendom, yet the churches are by no means agreed on the interpretation of these words. There is, in fact, such a divergency of opinion on this subject, even among Lutheran theologians, that it is well worth while to inquire again into the teachings of Scripture on this doctrine. Christ's descent into hell was not always confessed in the Second Article of the Creed. Ancient manuscripts do not record the words "He descended into hell." It was not before the year 359 that it became a part of the confession. This was at the Arianic Council of Sirmium, as Koehler tells us in his treatise Zur Lehre von deA' Hoellenfahrt. Here the Church confesses its faith in "the only­begotten Son of God, ... who suffered, was crucified, and descended into the underworld, or hell, causing the door-keepers of hell to tremble at His sight." That this was now the doctrine of the Church we see from the Ninth Canon of the Council of Constantinople (391), in which the anathema is pronounced on him who denied that the incarnate Word of God, being made alive again, went into Hades. This doctrine, however, was not merely taught now and henceforth, but it was taught in the Church from the beginning. Augustine says: "Veritas huius articuli extra omnem controversionem po­sita est." (The truth of this article is beyond all dispute.) Again: "Qui nisi infidelis negaverit apud inferos fuisse Ohristum?" (Who but an infidel would deny that Christ was in hell?) Besides, the following Fathers mention the descent: Cyril of Jerusalem, Oatech. (386), before 350; Irenaeus, 170, a disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John; Clemens Alexandrinus (L. u. W., 20, 17) mentions it and dis­tinguishes it from the suffering, death, and burial of Christ. The doctrine of the descent into hell is therefore not a truth which orig­inated later, which was not known to the ancient Church and was spuriously inserted into the Creed, but it is a doctrine which the Church of old always taught and which originated nowhere else than in Scripture. Let us see, according to the inerrant Word of God, what the Lord teaches concerning the descent of Christ into hell, and let us interpret Scripture by Scripture. We shall divide this study into three parts and consider first the fact, secondly the purpose, and thirdly the practical value of the descent into hell. Christ's Descent into Hell. 827 1. In searching Scripture for light on this doctrine, we must take the sedes doctrina8, the one and only passage which ex professo deals with the descent, 1 Pet. 3, 18-20. This passage will be referred to time and time again and explained in the course of our discussion. It is a crux interpretum, or a crux thooZogorum, but mainly because men do not take the words as they stand nor explain them in the light of Scripture, but in the light of their human reason. Who is it that descended into hell ~ That is the first question we wish to answer. What is the subiectum quod of the descent? Right here we have two answers at least which are quite popular. Some teach that only the soul of Christ descended, while others teach that the whole Christ, according to body and soul, was the subject of the descent. The former view was held by many eminent theo­logians of the early Church and is still popular in the Roman Church, where the traditions of the Fathers are at least as authoritative as the Bible. Koenig, in his treatise Die Lehre von der Hoellenfahrt, quotes 36 Church Fathers, but only one, Theodotus, teaches a descent in the resurrection body; the rest held that only the soul of Christ descended. Of modern theologians such men as Delitzsch, Hofmann, Laible, maintain that view, Delitzsch describing Christ as descending leiblos. That this view is utterly false can readily be seen from the sedes doctrinae. Here we see that Christ, the whole Christ, and not pneuma, is the subject of the statement. "Christ also hath once suffered, . . . by which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison." The Christ who had suffered went down; that was the whole Christ, since the soul did not suffer alone, nor was the soul raised or made alive. From the English translation it ought to be plain to every unpreju­diced mind of average intelligence that He who descended was Christ, the God-man, according to body and soul. "Christ, the entire God· man, was put to death; Christ, the entire God-man, was made alive and descended." Whence do men get the idea that only the soul descended ~ From the sedes doctrinae, or rather from a wrong exegesis of it. We read: {}a"an.Q{)si. p.i" aa(!HI, I;roo:n:ol'f}#si. ~E ~ql :n:"svp.a'lw Ii" 4> Hal ... :n:o(!sv#sk ("Being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit, by which also He went," etc. "By which" (Ii" 4» evidently refers to :n:"svp.a7:l, which may be translated soul or spirit. But that is a wrong explanation of the words. If we look at the original, we find that each of the two participles, being put to death and being made alive ({}a"an.Q{}sl" I; roo:n:ol'f}lhd. ), both predicated of Christ, are qualified by a noun in the dative, sarlci and pneumati. Here is the point where most interpreters have stumbled. What do sarx and pneuma mean in this case, and how must the datives be rendered ~ That is the 828 Christ's Descent into Hell. question on which everything-hinges. "In the £.rst place, we must know that the two datives are the same, have the same force in both cases; again, that they are not datives of instrument, but of reference. And secondly, sal'X and pneuma cannot denote merely flesh and spirit, body and soul, nor the two natures of the God-man as such, but they must denote the two modes of existence of the God-man, the former, His physical existence in a natural body, the latter, His spiritual mode of existence in a glorified body" (Dau).* We shall soon see that this is the only correct Scriptural and g-rammatical interpre­tation. The translation "Ohl'i -~ was put to death by the flesh and raised again by the spirit" is n0lJSC:Ufie. If we render this passage: Christ was put to death accOTding 1,0 the human nature and made alive according-to the divine, then something was made alive that never died, and something died that was not made alive, as Dr. Dau says. Our English Bible translates: "Being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit." This is inadmissible. The two nouns in the dative, both qualifying-the participle, must have the same force, one dative cannot be a dative of reference while the other is a dative of instrument. For this same reason many of our own theologians are wrong-who translate: "He was put to death according-to the human nature and made alive according-to the divine, in the streng'th of the divine." While this is not wrong in itself, while it is true that the divine natUl'e could not die and that the human nature could not of itself rise ag-ain, yet there are two objections to be raised to this rendering-of the words, In the first place, the datives would have different force, and that is not grammatically correct. And secondly, as Dr. Pieper says in his Dogmatik, Christ was not made alive according to the divine nature, just as He was put to death according to the human natUl'e, but both, the putting-to death and the making alive, happened unto Him according-to the human nature, the divine nature of course concurring-by reason of the personal union. Dr. Pieper (Vol. II, 378 f.) also calls attention to the fact that the following "in which," if pneumati would be rendered by "divine natUl'e," would mean that He descended to hell in His divine nature, while quickened (!;wo:n;Otl'}{}e[,) shows that the human nature also participated. No, "sarx and pneuma cannot denote the natures of Ohrist, but must denote the two modes of existence throug-h which the God-man passed. In His fleshly form of existence He lived a number of years; in that way He was put to death. In the grave Ohrist assumed life and also the body, but this body is now fitted for a new mode of existence, viz., in the world of spirits. It is the resurrection body, .. Lectures on O~ltline8 of Dootrina~ Theology by A. L. Graebner, deliv­ered in his course in Dogmatics in Concordia Seminary by W, H. T. Dau. Quotations are from the author's classroom notes of these lectures. Christ's Descent into Hell. 829 which all flesh shall assume wheu this mortal shall put on immortality. In this new mode of existence the quickening (I;wonob)atc;) occurred. The quickening is an event in the new and glorified state. 'Ev rf; refers to pneumaii and must be translated, 'in which glorified state,' in this new spirit-life, as a being which had now become a spirit, though retaining flesh and blood." (Dau.) Luther holds the same view when he says: "getoetet nach dem irdischen, fieischlichen Leben, Zebendig gemacht nach dem geistlichen, 1wbernat1terlichen Leben, in weZchem geistlichen, uebernatuerZichen Leben er' attch hingegnngen ist/' etc. (Quoted in Pieper, Ohr'istl. Dogmatik, II, 375.) That is the s1.tbiectum quod of the descent, the entire God-man, Jesus Ohrist, in His glorified state. The wbiectum quo, of course, is His human nature, since the acts of going, making alive, preaching, belong naturally to the human nature, the divine participating by reason of the personal union. This is also the teaching of Luther and our Oonfessions. Luther says with regard to the subiectum quod: "I believe in the Lord Ohrist, Son of God, who died, was buried, descended into hell, that is, in the whole person, God and man, with body and soul, undivided. He was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered, died and was buried. Therefore I shall also not part or divide here, but believe and say that this Ohrist, God and man, in one person, descended into hell, but remained not in the same." (Erl.20-16fJ.) The Formula of Ooncord (Article IX, Epitome) endorses this state­ment of Luther. Having ascertained who descended into hell, our next question is as to the te~'min~ts ad q1tem of the descent. The question to be decided at this juncture is whether we shall, like some teachers of the old Ohurch, identify the descent of Ohrist with death and its bonds or, like some of the Reformed, with His suffering, or whether we shall teach and hold a VC1'a et realis descensio a.d inferos. Many ancient Fathers believed the descent to be identical with death, or the sojourn in the grave, while the Oatholic Ohurch teaches that Ohrist went to the limb'us patn~mJ the place where the souls of the departed fathers dwelt. "What does the Word of God say? "He went and preached unto the spirits in prison" ('Wi, i!v 'Pv).a~fi nVEvfwawnogEv{hi:;>'"f)gv!;Er), and from the next verse we see that these W81'e refractory, unruly spirits, a:n.Etf}f)uau[y nou, "which sometime were disobedient," refused to accept and believe the Gospel. "The natural force of the word cpvJ.a~f), prison, or career, and every con­nection which this word holds with other terms in our text compels us to interpret it as denoting hell, or, as Quenstedt has it, career infernaZis seu rcceptacu.zum et nov damnatorum spirituum." "The claim that 'He descended into hell' means the same as 'He was buried' breaks down right here. For it stands to reason that no spirits are in the grave, but merely bodies, and Ohrist went to the prison of 830 Christ's Descent into Hell. spirits. Furthermore, such a meaning of Ohrist's descent would' result in meaningless repetitions, and in a short, comprehensive­statement such as the Oreed there is no room for such tautologies." Nor can Ohrist have entered the limbw; patrum, there to free the souls of the departed saints who had awaited the coming of the Messiah; for such a place is not in existence according to Oatholic description of it, but it can be, aye, is, hell; for of hell we know that it is the abode of the damned spirits, that the devils are held in chains of darkness, reserved unto Judgment, 2 Pet. 2. Hence 'PvJ.ax~,. prison, dare not be confounded with Hades, is not identical with the place and state of the dead, but is the pou damnatorum spirituum. The termintts a quo of the descent is the grave; the terminus ad quem, hell. What about the time of Ohrist's descent into hell? When did it happen? Before or after death, before or after vivification and resurrection? Much depends upon the answer. If it happened before­His soul and body were reunited, then it took place during the state of death. Delitzsch, Laible and Hofmann hold that it occurred before vivification, and the Fathers all taught that Ohrist descended into hell while His body was still in the grave. According to this theory the descent is either nothing else than a sojourn in the grave, or it is the descent of the soul only, as the Roman Oatholics claim. Both have been disproved above; therefore the time of Christ's de­scent cannot be before body and soul were reunited. What does our sedes doct,'inal) say of this matter ~ We read; {favaTw{}etq pi" oaex{, i;;wo:n:ot1)tJei. (js :n:vevpar:l" B'p ,:p xat WIt; lp 'l'v},oxfi :rcvev­pao", :n:oeEV{}e{t;. "Being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit; by which also He went." Here the descent is placed after the quickening. In v. 21 the resurrection of Ohrist is mentioned, and in v. 22 we read: "Who is gone into heaven and is on the right hand of God," and chap. 4, 6 reference is made to the return to J udg­ment. Olearly the individual stages of humiliation and exaltation are here enumerated in their historic order, just like in the Second Article of our Oreed. Ohrist the God-man suffered, died, was vivified, went to preach to the spirits in prison, rose, ascended, sitteth at the right hand of God, and will return to Judgment. And thus we have the time of descent -between burial and resurrection. !fark well, how­ever, the difference between 1;,wo:n:O(1)o,;; and «v«{noo,., vivification and resurrection in the narrower sense (l;wo:n:oi'1atQ simplicite declarat ani­mae corporisque coniunctionem), union of body an:d soul and vivifi­cation. Peter plainly distinguishes between the two, and the vivifica­tion takes place in the tomb before His resurrection. That alone enables us to ascertain with certainty the time of Ohrist's descent; it took place after the vivification in the tomb, before His resur­rection proper on Easter Sunday morning. This can be the only Christ's Descent into Hell. 831 time according to 1 Pet. 3. Quenstedt correctly says: "Temporis articuli momentum illud, quod intercessit inter !;(j)oJro{Yjow et avaOTaow Ohristi, stricte dictam." It is the moment which intervened between the vivification and the resurrection in the narrower sense, or His leaving the tomb on Easter Sunday. Just when it occurred within that space of time, we do not know. Quenstedt thinks it happened during the earthquake on that Sunday morning. It suffices to know that it occurred as our Oreed puts it, in the same order, after the burial and before the resurrection, but, according to Peter, after the vivification in the tomb. The tomb was empty during the descent. The Formula of Ooncord says post sepulturam, and Luther, to whom l'epeated reference is made in Art. IX of the Formula of Ooncord, says: "Before He rose and ascended into heaven, while He yet lay in the grave, He also descended down into hell that He might deliver :us therefrom who ought to lie captive therein." It remains to be seen how the descent was performed, the manner of it, the forma descensus. "The verb poreutheis (went) denotes loco­motion and states the forma de::;census. At the time of His descent His body was not in the grave. But since the subject of this action is a person, existing in a glorified, spiritual body, and since He is the omnipresent God at the same time, poreutheis can only be mani­festation of the reanimated Ohrist in a certain locality. The action -expressed by it was just as instantaneous as the manifestation of the risen Ohrist to His disciples." Hollaz says on this point: "Quamvis descensus ... fuerit verus et realis, non tamen physicus aut localis, sed supernatu1'alis motus fuit." Luther warns against speculating too much on how this act was performed, and the Formula of Ooncord repeats this warning. "Ich will dies en Artikel nicht hoch und scharf handeln, wie es sei zugegangen oder was da heisse zur Hoelle fahren, sondern bei dem einfaeltigen V cTstande bleiben, wie diese W o1'te lauten und wie man's K·indern und Einfaeltigen 'vorbilden muss. Denn es sind 'Wohl viel gewesen, die solches mit Vernun/t und /uenf Sinnen haben 'Wollen fassen, abel' damit nichts troffen, sondern sind nur weiter vom Glauben gegangen und abgeluehrt." (Ed., 20, 166.) Though we cannot fathom it, yet we accept it, "that it was a true and real, aye, majestic, glorious, and triumphant manifestation or presentation of the God-man made alive accol'ding to the flesh." (Oarpzov.) So much for the fact of the descent. "We confess that the descent really took place, that it is not the. act, metaphorically so named, whereby Christ suffered the pains of death, and the derelictio, nor the act metonymically so named, which exhibits to us the fruits of the Passion of Ohrist, but it is a descensio vera et realis, a glorious event, which occurred after Christ had all His work finished." 832 Christ's Descent into Hell. II. Having seen what Scripture and our Church teach concerning the fact of the descent, we shall now turn to the purpose of the descent, the finis and effectus. It is here that we find the greatest divergency of opinion among the dogmaticians. Again, this is due solely to the fact that Scripture is not inter­preted according to Scripture, that reason is caned upon to assist in explaining the passage in Peter. What, then, is the real purpose of Christ's descent into hell? For one thing, Christ did not descend to suffer. This error was taught by one Aepinus, Pastor in Hamburg (died 1553), and it was this error which caused Art. IX to be added to the Formula of Concord. There is in our text and in all Scripture not one word indicating that Christ descended for such a purpose. Some one has said that the act was performed by Christ ad redemptionis nostrae complementum, for the purpose of completing our redemption; but we know that redemption had been completed when Jesus closed His eyes in death; for at the moment of death He exclaimed, "It is finished"; besides, He tells the thief He would be in paradise that very day; and furthermore He commends His soul into the hands of His Father. These words show that death and burial were the last stages of His humiliation, that redemption was finished for all times to come. Even our proof-text tells us that the state of suffer­ing was over; for BV ,p, in which, was explained above as "in which glorified state" or "in which spiritual mode of existence." "Peter had shown till now that the path of golory leads through suffering and shame, that the crown follows the cross. This truth he now seeks to illustrate by an event in the life of the Lord Himself. "EnaiJe, the aorist, shows together with three qualifiers (ana~ ;aeet artaeUWv, dlxato. unie &Mx(J)v, ,va ~f1-ar; ;aeoaayciyl'l TqJ {}sqJ) that the state of suf­fering had become terminated and that what the apostle is now to relate no longer belongs to the state of suffering." Christ suffered, and when it was over, He descended into hell for a manifestation of His glory. That this is the only correct interpretation we shall presently see. Even Acts 2, 24 cannot be quoted in support of the above-mentioned wrong doctrine, or view; for this passage refers to the body of Ohrist only, which was held by the pains or bands of death until vivification. Of the descent, however, we know that it took place according' to both body and soul. Nor was the purpose of Ohrist's descent to preach the Gospel. This view is held by many, also in the Lutheran Ohurch. How do they arrive at this un scriptural conclusion? Our text reads: "By which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison," 6'1' ,p :n:oeBV{}s!, xai TOr, EV